Unicorn Overlord - Tactical RPG by Vanillaware

[Saark]

This is flawed reasoning, it's assuming that it's a zero sum game. The original argument is that if they made a PC port, they would recoup the investment massively. More money = more time to develop the next game, possibility to hire more people to do it faster. And less odds of running out of money.

You may call it flawed reasoning, yet you fail to engage with any of the points I made beyond the financial one. Is it likely that a PC release would bring in more money? Absolutely. Are they capable of doing so? Unlikely. Are they willing to let their publishers outsource it? No.

Clearly Vanillaware values their ability to have complete creative control over their products very highly, to the point where they continue making games that most people would agree are incredibly niche and unlikely to sell in high quantities. Yet they keep doing it. Clearly money isn't the prime motivator for them, consequently the entire "but they'd make so much more money" argument isn't as strong an argument either. They could release games "unfinished" instead of dipping into savings, cut down on QA before release or do any number of things that would be more fiscally sound decisionmaking. But they're not, and I would argue that their stance on not compromising on any of these matters is part of what makes their games stand out.

I could easily see that they do not want to put any of their current staff to do anything but work on their current project, instead of spending weeks if not months training before finally porting games to PC. And maybe they're not interested in bringing somebody in whose main responsibility would be porting the game either, since they're not actually adding value to the creation of the game, they'd just add value to the company. Would it bring in more revenue? Potentially. Would it actually increase profits? Probably, but there's no real evidence to support (or refute) that. Will that math be favorable for them in the end considering they have to either expand staff, spend more time before releasing games or compromise on game quality? I don't know, and I'm guessing a company that is already working from release to release barely being able to finish before going bankrupt, isn't willing to take that risk. Would you?

 

[Yosharian]

There's no real evidence to suggest that bringing the game to PC would increase profits? I think you have brain damage.

 

[flyingjohn]

The only reason they aren't making a PC version is because the CEO hates PC. Making a Xbox version and not a PC version for a Japanese game is just pure stupidity.
But it is his studio, so he can do whatever stupid decisions he wants to.

 

[Jaedar]

I don't know, and I'm guessing a company that is already working from release to release barely being able to finish before going bankrupt, isn't willing to take that risk. Would you?

By that logic, they should just shutter the whole company. It's more of a financial risk to make a new game than to port the existing one to PC (probably). The argument is pc port -> more money -> financial security -> more time in total to polish their next release. You do really seem to operate under the assumption that all this extra money would just line the pockets of some exec, so that making a PC port would be net loss in manpower for the next game. And yeah, under that assumption a pc port would be bad. But it's a dumb assumption, so I would suggest you drop it or try to convince me that it is true.

As for risks: It is highly unlikely that teetering on extinction between every release is fun, and it does also mean that if one of your games fail you have no chance to recover. They might succeed on their next game, and the next. But how many times would you really want to roll the dice? Broadening their market by releasing on pc (as opposed to by making more mainstream titles) seems like a good alternative to just hoping you never roll poorly before hitting your first real jackpot.

Your only point beyond the financial one seems to be "but they don't like working with pc, let them cook!". And well, maybe they do just hate PC with a passion and it would crush their spirits to release on PC, a violation of their entire creative vision. But that seems unlikely compared to their management just being old school japanese who don't see PC as a viable release platform for non-factual reasons.

 

[mediocrepoet]

I don't know, and I'm guessing a company that is already working from release to release barely being able to finish before going bankrupt, isn't willing to take that risk. Would you?

By that logic, they should just shutter the whole company. It's more of a financial risk to make a new game than to port the existing one to PC (probably). The argument is pc port -> more money -> financial security -> more time in total to polish their next release. You do really seem to operate under the assumption that all this extra money would just line the pockets of some exec, so that making a PC port would be net loss in manpower for the next game. And yeah, under that assumption a pc port would be bad. But it's a dumb assumption, so I would suggest you drop it or try to convince me that it is true.

As for risks: It is highly unlikely that teetering on extinction between every release is fun, and it does also mean that if one of your games fail you have no chance to recover. They might succeed on their next game, and the next. But how many times would you really want to roll the dice? Broadening their market by releasing on pc (as opposed to by making more mainstream titles) seems like a good alternative to just hoping you never roll poorly before hitting your first real jackpot.

Your only point beyond the financial one seems to be "but they don't like working with pc, let them cook!". And well, maybe they do just hate PC with a passion and it would crush their spirits to release on PC, a violation of their entire creative vision. But that seems unlikely compared to their management just being old school japanese who don't see PC as a viable release platform for non-factual reasons.

It's not like games materialize from the ether. They almost certainly have no PC programming expertise and devs almost always complain about developing for multiple system specs instead of one solid one per console. So they have no personnel for it and would have to develop that skill set as an organization over time which would also detract from actually developing whatever they're working on.

Could it make financial sense? Sure. But Saark's right - this doesn't seem to be their motivating factor outside of doing what they need to do to make a living while focusing on what they like to do. Their games are artistically sound and well presented, but a lot of the actual gameplay elements are almost bizarre at times and basically never in tune with what the industry is doing or what the trends show as popular or profitable. For that, you'd have shit mills like Activision, EA, or (back in the day) Acclaim.

 

[Jaedar]

It's not like games materialize from the ether. They almost certainly have no PC programming expertise and devs almost always complain about developing for multiple system specs instead of one solid one per console. So they have no personnel for it and would have to develop that skill set as an organization over time which would also detract from actually developing whatever they're working on.

It is my understanding that the current gen consoles (with the possible exception of the switch) are very close to a normal PC in terms of developing games. And they're already releasing on 5 different platforms, so them not having an organization that could handle a 6th seems unlikely.

They would have to redesign the ui to play nice with a mouse and keyboard though. But well, it took fromsoft 3 tries before they made a pc port that wasn't shite to control with m+kb, and it seems to have turned out well for them.

The only reason they aren't making a PC version is because the CEO hates PC. Making a Xbox version and not a PC version for a Japanese game is just pure stupidity.
But it is his studio, so he can do whatever stupid decisions he wants to.

You have a source for that? Would be interesting to read.

 

[flyingjohn]

They would have to redesign the ui to play nice with a mouse and keyboard though

Actually they wouldn't. A lot of Japanese PC ports don't support keyboard and mouse. And they implement controller exclusively through STEAM, so even less programming.

You have a source for that? Would be interesting to read.

None. But their first game was a PC mmo that had hellish development. Maybe the experience jaded him enough to avoid PC altogether.

 

[Jaedar]

Actually they wouldn't. A lot of Japanese PC ports don't support keyboard and mouse. And they implement controller exclusively through STEAM, so even less programming.

Huh, didn't know that. I would assume there would be a major outcry and lots of negative reviews from that.

 

[flyingjohn]

Huh, didn't know that. I would assume there would be a major outcry and lots of negative reviews from that.

Most people don't care since they are already using a controller anway. But here is plenty of bithcing on the steam forums.

 

[Demo.Graph]

The only reason they aren't making a PC version is because the CEO hates PC. Making a Xbox version and not a PC version for a Japanese game is just pure stupidity.
But it is his studio, so he can do whatever stupid decisions he wants to.

You have a source for that? Would be interesting to read.

I believe (that is, I don't have a source but believe it to be true from personal discussions) that many small Japanese devs have an informal obligation to not publish on PC for some years after initial release. All major Japanese publishers are affiliated with console manufacturers (or are manufacturers themselves), so there's an incentive to provide exclusive content for them to stimulate sales. And nobody wants to disrupt the console market as not to endanger the stability of Japanese gaming industry as a whole.

 

[Jaedar]

The only reason they aren't making a PC version is because the CEO hates PC. Making a Xbox version and not a PC version for a Japanese game is just pure stupidity.
But it is his studio, so he can do whatever stupid decisions he wants to.

You have a source for that? Would be interesting to read.

I believe (that is, I don't have a source but believe it to be true from personal discussions) that many small Japanese devs have an informal obligation to not publish on PC for some years after initial release. All major Japanese publishers are affiliated with console manufacturers (or are manufacturers themselves), so there's an incentive to provide exclusive content for them to stimulate sales. And nobody wants to disrupt the console market as not to endanger the stability of Japanese gaming industry as a whole.

I could totally buy this if the game was on switch/playstation only, but it's also on xbox. Or is it just that PC is seen as a threat to switch/ps, whereas the xbox isn't? (Which might be true, it seems latest xbox sold half a million in japan, compared to 30 mln switch and 5 mln ps5)

 

[Grunker]

So it seems like everyone and their mother loves this one, it's that good, huh?

I got a Switch, I might take it for a spin if it's got the Codex stamp of approval.

 

[Reinhardt]

so them not having an organization that could handle a 6th seems unlikely.

they are 30-40 people studio, not 100s or 1000s.

 

[Jaedar]

So it seems like everyone and their mother loves this one, it's that good, huh?

I got a Switch, I might take it for a spin if it's got the Codex stamp of approval.

I quit 50% through, but I had a good time for the first 10-20 hours.

Historically speaking, this means you will probably love it.

It has a demo, and the saves transfer, so try that. It is very generous with how much game content you get.

 

[Grunker]

So it seems like everyone and their mother loves this one, it's that good, huh?

I got a Switch, I might take it for a spin if it's got the Codex stamp of approval.

I quit 50% through, but I had a good time for the first 10-20 hours.

Historically speaking, this means you will probably love it.

It has a demo, and the saves transfer, so try that. It is very generous with how much game content you get.

Brill. Just out of curiosity, what didn't you like?

I quit the Ogre Tactics remake about 50% through as well, it was just too simple for me to enjoy and the story while inoffensive didn't really grab me (which I'm expecting to be the case with this one as well).

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Aren't ports very (if not most) often done by third party now? There are companies here that specialize in this thing and would do it for some vodka and out of sheer happiness that someone is willing to sign a contract with them.

Also, this game's p. boring.

 

[wolfbane]

Too much RNG to keep track of stuff and model fights in my head, so I just look at the combat preview.

You were trying to calculate it in your head?

The game gives you all the info you need. Though the combat preview did change sometimes, bizarrely, I have no idea why lol.

 

[Grunker]

Though the combat preview did change sometimes, bizarrely, I have no idea why lol.

Haven't played it but the reviews I watched all said the combat preview changes based on fight-specific modifiers

 

[wolfbane]

Haven't played it but the reviews I watched all said the combat preview changes based on fight-specific modifiers

Yeah, what I mean is that the combat preview would say I would kill the enemy unit, and then when my unit finally got there, suddenly the enemy actually had an advantage.

That can and will happen if the opposing unit is in a garrison and some soldiers who were dead got revived, but this was happening to me on a garrisoned unit with no casualties whatsoever, among others. It was rare but I have no idea why it happened lol.

 

[Yosharian]

I mean yes third party ports are pretty hit and miss, that's fair. But honestly the bar for ports of JP games is not particularly high. Even if it didn't have ANY MKB support I suspect it would still sell well. And it's not like this game is technically demanding like some console games. It's a 2D autobattler for fuck's sake.

 

[Jaedar]

Just out of curiosity, what didn't you like?

Unclear. It started to feel quite unfocused, and my primary tactic became more "lul, throw strongest units in a stack at the enemy and laugh" instead of the more tactical formation juggling early. It is also a very long game.

I kinda want to call it out for being too easy, which is true, but also once it became complex enough (ie 4+ units in every formation, each with items, tactics, etc) I just can't be arsed to try and keep track of it all and create specific formations to deal with things. In part its that there are a lot of moving parts, but fights are also a total chaos engine where just changing inconsequential things will change a fight from total victory to total defeat. So instead I just end up using the same few formations and let the battle prediction decide who gets to do each fight.

The game is also quite long, and the cool artstyle can only carry it for so long.

Yeah, what I mean is that the combat preview would say I would kill the enemy unit, and then when my unit finally got there, suddenly the enemy actually had an advantage.

Partly it's just rng, crits can change a lot. Partly it's that the preview doesn't take support units into account.

Too much RNG to keep track of stuff and model fights in my head, so I just look at the combat preview.

You were trying to calculate it in your head?

The game gives you all the info you need. Though the combat preview did change sometimes, bizarrely, I have no idea why lol.

Yeah, how else am I going to make tactical decisions and arrange my formations? Not super detailed obv, just "hmm, why does this fight go completely differently if I move my backliner to a different backtile?"

 

[Reinhardt]

just "hmm, why does this fight go completely differently if I move my backliner to a different backtile?"

like moving it from the tile it could be targeted by column attack? truly a mystery.

 

[wolfbane]

To be clear, I don’t disagree that the tactical element falls apart a bit at the end. I hardly count that as a weakness of the game, but moreso of the genre. It’s hard for the AI to put up meaningful resistance to your doom stacks. At one point I had to start switching my units around more because I had 2 doom stacks that would utterly destroy anything, but some maps needed more than just 2 units lol.

Though I was impressed when the AI did manage to get a good Arrow Rain on me, and the Bastorias maps were actually pretty good for tactics, especially if you choose to fight the bear and the wolf at the same time (during that one side quest)

But similarly to Fire Emblem (and history I guess lol), mounted units are supreme and flying units are excellent glass cannons. Alain’s promote was outrageously powerful, as was Clive’s with a magic attack spear.

The other killer unit was Virginia, she could pretty much solo most stuff, but give her Tatiana, a hammer soldier with the infinite AP +1 on kill skill, and a radiant knight and hardly anything could stop them

EDIT: geez this is making me want to play it again lol. Maybe I should play the Ogre Battle games though, since they’re the inspiration and I’ve never played them

 

[Reinhardt]

the bear and the wolf

best map in the game as i said earlier. especially after full moon raises.

 

[Yosharian]

Seems to be that the biggest issues are the units that can hit every enemy unit. Once you get those and start powering them up, the strategy goes out the window. Row/column attackers are bad enough, those are already strong, but hitting every enemy in the field is kind of crazy